Southern Cross Institute,
Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
HRM201 Human Resources Management
Semester 1, 2026
Assessment 2 – Individual Case Study Analysis Report
Submission Deadline: This Week, 11:59 pm (Week 6)
Assessment weighting – 30%
Purpose of this assessment
This assessment aims to deepen students’ understanding of the intersection between gender and economic policies during crises by critically analysing the gendered impacts of the Australian Government’s economic support measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the report should focus on the JobKeeper payment, JobSeeker supplements, and early access to superannuation schemes.
Demonstrate achievement of this learning outcome:
ULO 1. Explain how HRM theories positively influence organisational culture and practice
ULO 2. Apply HRM theories and practices for training and development of staff to enhance organisational performance
Task description:
To complete this assessment,
Students are required to critically analyse the gendered impacts of the Australian Government’s economic support measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically students’ report should examine by focusing on the JobKeeper payment, JobSeeker supplements, and early access to superannuation. Evaluate how these policies influenced women’s employment and economic security. Assess whether these measures adequately addressed the unique challenges faced by women or contributed to gender disparities in the workforce. Propose alternative strategies to enhance women’s economic participation and mitigate long-term gender inequality.
1. Critical Analysis: Students are required to critically examine how the aforementioned government policies affected women’s employment and economic security during the pandemic. This involves evaluating the extent to which these measures supported or failed to support the unique needs of women in the workforce.
2. Evaluation of Policy Impact: Assess the effectiveness of these economic support measures in addressing the specific challenges faced by women. This includes determining whether the policies inadvertently contributed to widening gender disparities in the workforce or if they helped to mitigate existing inequalities.
Southern Cross Institute,
Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
Tel: +61 2 9066 6902
TEQSA Provider No: PRV14353 CRICOS Provider No: 04078ª
Page 2 of 16
3. Proposal of Alternative Strategies: Based on their analysis, students are expected to propose alternative strategies or enhancements to existing policies that could better support women’s economic participation and reduce long-term gender inequality. These recommendations should aim to offer practical and feasible solutions to enhance gender equity in economic recovery plans.
Word count:
Length: 2000 words (excluding reference list) (plus/minus 10%)
A suggested length guide for your assessment (you can change this to suit your report structure):
• SCI Cover Page (Provided by the lecturer)
• Table of contents
•
Executive summary (Approx. 100 words)
•
Introduction (Approx. 200 words)
•
Body (Approx. 1100 words)
•
Recommendation (Approx. 500 words)
•
Conclusion (Approx. 100 words)
•
References
Executive Summary (Approx. 100 words)
•
Concisely summarise key findings on the impact of Job Keeper, JobSeeker, and early access to superannuation on women’s employment and economic security.
•
Indicate the adequacy of these measures in addressing the unique challenges faced by women during the pandemic.
•
Preview recommended strategies for improving gender equity.
Introduction (Approx. 200 words)
•
Set the context by explaining the impact of COVID-19 on global and national economies, focusing on Australian women.
•
Introduce the economic measures analysed: Job Keeper, JobSeeker, and early access to superannuation.
•
Outline the aim of the report to evaluate these measures and explore better alternatives for gender equality.
Body (Approx. 1100 words)
Impact Analysis:
•
Detail the specific effects of the pandemic on women’s employment statistics and job security.
•
Examine each policy’s role in either supporting or failing to support women during the crisis.
Southern Cross Institute,
Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
Tel: +61 2 9066 6902 Website: www.sci.edu.au
TEQSA Provider No: PRV14353 CRICOS Provider No: 04078ª
Page 3 of 16
Critical Evaluation:
•
Critically assess whether the economic support measures adequately addressed the challenges faced by women.
•
Discuss potential areas where policies exacerbated gender disparities.
Recommendation (Approx. 500 words)
•
Suggest actionable and evidence-based strategies to enhance women’s economic participation.
•
Propose modifications to existing policies or introduce new initiatives based on successful international practices.
•
Ensure each recommendation is practical and geared towards closing the gender gap in employment and economic security.
Conclusion (Approx. 100 words)
•
Summarise the importance of incorporating a gender perspective in economic policymaking.
•
Emphasise the broader benefits of the proposed recommendations for achieving economic health and social equity.
References
•
Compile a comprehensive list of all academic sources, government reports, and credible data used in the report.
•
Format references consistently according to academic standards – APA 7th edition
Other requirements
•
Upload an MS Word file.
•
Format: 12-point Arial or Calibri or Times New Roman, 1.5 line spacing, with page numbers inserted at bottom right.
Citation and referencing (APA 7th edition)
The assignment should show evidence of research, with references from relevant academic journals. You should have at least ten different peer-reviewed academic articles and use them as the foundation for each part of your report. Do not use Wikipedia as a reference source. Unless it is a generic theory/model, cited publications must be within the past 10 years.
All citations and references must adhere to APA 7th edition referencing style.
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/examples
Assessment submission Guidelines
Before the due date, individual students are allowed three (3) submission attempts, providing an opportunity to check for unintended plagiarism using text-matching software. Individual student, review the similarity report together, make any necessary revisions, and
Southern Cross Institute,
Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
Tel: +61 2 9066 6902 Website: www.sci.edu.au
TEQSA Provider No: PRV14353 CRICOS Provider No: 04078ª
Page 4 of 16
ensure your final submission reflects the original work. If the similarity score is 30% or higher, collaborate to revise the content before making your final submission, as high similarity may indicate academic misconduct.
Please refer to the 201 HRM Unit Assessment Guide for additional information
https://elearning.sci.edu.au/mod/resource/view.php?id=35310
Academic Integrity and Misconduct
Students must submit original work and uphold academic integrity at Southern Cross Institute (SCI). The Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure outlines the principles of academic honesty and details the consequences of misconduct, including plagiarism, recycling, fabricating information, collusion, cheating in examinations, contract cheating, artificial intelligence tools, dishonest behaviour etc. SCI utilises Turnitin to encourage proper citation practices and to detect potential academic misconduct.
Ethical Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) Tools
Students are permitted to ethically use GenAI Tools for this assessment.
Refer to the Quick Guide for Students created by the Learning Support Team for best practices in using GenAI tools. While GenAI can assist with idea generation, structuring, and drafting, students must carefully review, paraphrase, and properly reference any AI-generated content if used. Overreliance on AI may raise academic integrity concerns such as fabricating information.
Creating a reference to ChatGPT or other AI models and software
As per American Psychological Association (2020), the reference and in-text citations for ChatGPT are formatted as follows:
OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Mar 14 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat
•
Parenthetical citation: (OpenAI, 2023)
•
Narrative citation: OpenAI (2023)
Note: Although here we focus on ChatGPT, they can be adapted to the use of other large language models (e.g., Bard), algorithms, and similar software.
Please refer to the HSM204 Unit Assessment Guide for additional information
https://elearning.sci.edu.au/mod/resource/view.php?id=35310
Southern Cross Institute,
Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
Tel: +61 2 9066 6902 Website: www.sci.edu.au
TEQSA Provider No: PRV14353 CRICOS Provider No: 04078ª
Page 5 of 16
CASE STUDY
Introduction
Women workers in Australia were disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The global economic and health crisis, unprecedented in depth and scale (Pazarbasioglu and Kose, 2020), exposed and compounded gendered asymmetries in paid and unpaid labour, and revealed the gendered nature of workforce policy settings. In contrast with past economic crises, women experienced larger falls in employment and labour force participation compared to men, even as they faced relatively higher exposure to the virus as frontline workers in healthcare, education, retail and other ‘essential’ industries (Cooper and Mosseri, 2020a). Despite these disruptions, women received relatively little long-term government and regulatory assistance to support their workforce participation and strengthen their long-term economic security.
This annual review of women, work and industrial relations will explore the economic and social impact of the pandemic on women workers in Australia. We begin by focusing on women’s employment and labour force participation, before examining the gendered impact of key policy responses such as the JobKeeper and JobSeeker programmes, early access to superannuation, industry-focused economic stimulus measures, changes to early childhood care and education (ECEC), aged care, pandemic leave and flexible working arrangements. Developments in parental leave and sexual harassment are also briefly discussed.
Employment and labour force participation
Women’s employment and labour force participation were severely impacted by the pandemic and associated lockdowns, which ranged from a 6-week nationwide lockdown between March and May to more than 110 days in Victoria between July and October (ABC News, 2020; Towell et al., 2020). Between March and May, the pandemic’s initial wave, women’s employment fell by 7.6%, while men’s employment fell by 5.9% (ABS, 2020b). Women’s working hours also declined more sharply during this period, falling 10.8% compared to 7.4% for men (ABS, 2020c). These declines were largely attributed to women’s disproportionate concentration in casual work in service-focused sectors heavily affected by the pandemic, namely retail and accommodation and food services (Cooper and Mosseri, 2020b). Women’s labour force participation also suffered during this period, falling 3.7 percentage points, compared to 2.8 percentage points for men (ABS, 2020b), as businesses and schools closed, and women assumed a larger share of unpaid domestic and caregiving responsibilities (Craig and Churchill, 2020).
Although the gender gap in employment and labour force participation had largely closed by September 2020,1 as women re-entered the labour market and returned to jobs at a quicker
Southern Cross Institute,
Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
Tel: +61 2 9066 6902 Website: www.sci.edu.au
TEQSA Provider No: PRV14353 CRICOS Provider No: 04078ª
Page 6 of 16
pace than men, the long-term effects of the crisis remain to be seen. Women did not enter the pandemic on equal economic footing with men (Birch and Preston, 2020; Foley et al., 2020) and it is well established that women are disproportionately exposed to financial shocks, owing to their greater concentration in precarious employment (Baird and Hill, 2020; Blanton et al., 2019; Rubery and Rafferty, 2013). We next examine policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis, including the introduction of temporary wage subsidies, the early release of superannuation and other industry-focused stimulus measures.
Economic and policy response
JobKeeper, JobSeeker and early release of superannuation
Responding to steep job losses and business closures in early 2020, the Australian Government announced the $130 billion JobKeeper package, providing some 6 million workers with an historic wage subsidy of $1500 per fortnight (Morrison and Frydenberg, 2020). The package covered full-time and part-time workers, sole traders and casual workers with 12 months or more service with their employer. Employers with less than $1 billion in annual turnover were deemed eligible for JobKeeper if they experienced a self-assessed reduction in revenue of 30% or more after 1 March; employers with more than $1 billion in annual turnover were deemed eligible if they experienced a revenue drop of 50% or more (Morrison and Frydenberg, 2020). Although many part-time workers were temporarily better off under JobKeeper,2 some 950,000 casual workers were excluded from the scheme. These workers were mostly employed in the accommodation and food services, retail trade, and healthcare and social assistance sectors, where women comprise a majority of casual workers (Cassells and Duncan, 2020). At the time of writing, the JobKeeper subsidy was scheduled to expire in March 2021.
To assist unemployed workers, the Government replaced the Newstart Allowance with a single JobSeeker payment and added a temporary $550 per fortnight Coronavirus Supplement,3 effectively doubling the unemployment safety net to $1100 per fortnight. The Government also enabled eligible workers to withdraw up to $10,000 of their superannuation savings in financial years 2019–2020 and 2020–2021. Men accounted for 56% of early release applications, withdrawing $11.5 billion in 2019–2020, while women withdrew $8.5 billion (Australian Tax Office, 2020). Although men made more withdrawals in absolute terms, women withdrew a significantly larger share of their total balances, which were already lower on average than men’s (see AIST, 2020; AMP, 2020; HESTA, 2020). Critics of the early release scheme argued that it will compound the gender gap in superannuation, which sees women retire with approximately 58% of the superannuation savings of men (Clare, 2017).
Southern Cross Institute,
Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
Tel: +61 2 9066 6902 Website: www.sci.edu.au
TEQSA Provider No: PRV14353 CRICOS Provider No: 04078ª
Page 7 of 16
Industry-focused spending
Throughout 2020, the Government announced multiple industry-focused spending measures, including, for example, its HomeBuilder package to support residential construction and various initiatives aimed at kickstarting a proposed ‘gas-fired recovery’ (Morrison, 2020a, 2020b). A Grattan Institute analysis of industry-focused spending found that the three industries that received the most support included construction (more than $10 billion), energy ($4 billion) and manufacturing ($3 billion) (Wood et al., 2020a). However, critics argued that these industries – which are both male-dominated and capital intensive – were not only among the least affected by the economic downturn but were also the least likely to create new jobs.
Various scholars and women’s advocates argued that federal spending should be directed instead to labour-intensive industries such as health care, ECEC and aged care, on the basis that such spending would create more jobs and therefore do more to stimulate the economy (see e.g. De Henau and Himmelweit, 2020; Hare, 2020; National Foundation for Australian Women, 2020). Analysing ABS employment multipliers, Richardson and Denniss (2020) found that for every $1 million in economic stimulus directed at education and training, up to 14.9 jobs would be created (of which 10.6 would flow to women); and for every $1 million invested in healthcare, 10.2 jobs would be created (of which 7.9 would flow to women). Conversely, the equivalent spend in construction would yield only 1.2 jobs (of which approximately 0.2 jobs would be filled by women). Across multiple industries, investments in highly feminised sectors led to the creation of more jobs overall – and more jobs for women in particular – than male-dominated industries. Thus, the authors argued, ‘the disparity between the most and least female intensive industries is so stark that they cannot be ignored by those interested in designing job creation stimulus packages’ (Richardson and Denniss, 2020: 9).
Women’s economic security statement
In its 2020–2021 Budget, the Government directed $240 million over 5 years to initiatives specifically aimed at boosting women’s workforce participation and economic security, compared to the total budget expenditure of approximately $500 billion. This spending was broadly outlined in the Government’s 2020 Women’s Economic Security Statement (the ‘Statement’), which extended several policies introduced in the Government’s inaugural 2018 Statement (for background, see Foley et al., 2020). The 2020 statement outlined a range of new and continuing measures aimed at supporting five key priorities: (1) repairing and rebuilding women’s workforce participation and closing the gender pay gap; (2) creating greater choice and flexibility in the management of work and care; (3) supporting women as leaders and positive role models; (4) responding to the diverse needs of women; and (5) securing women’s safety at work and at home (Australian Government, 2020). New
Southern Cross Institute,
Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
Tel: +61 2 9066 6902 Website: www.sci.edu.au
TEQSA Provider No: PRV14353 CRICOS Provider No: 04078ª
Page 8 of 16
initiatives in 2020 included funding measures aimed at boosting the number of women in male-dominated occupations and industries, supporting women entrepreneurs and helping women return to the workforce after a midcareer break. Critics, however, argued that the policy was inadequate (see e.g. Dent, 2020; Palmer-Derrien, 2020), because it pledged almost no new funding for childcare, which has long been identified as a major impediment to women’s workforce participation (Foley et al., 2020). ECEC was the focus of several policy changes in 2020 but many of these changes were short-lived, as discussed in the next section.
Early childhood education and care
In April, with childcare centres facing mass closures due to COVID-19 (Shepherd, 2020), the Government announced a $1.6 billion temporary funding package which provided direct subsidies to ECEC centres and made childcare services fee-free for many families (Morrison and Tehan, 2020). The move temporarily suspended the Child Care Subsidy – which the Government implemented in 2018, and under which many parents pay a gap fee (see Klapdor, 2019) – with near universal free care. This signalled a dramatic reversal for the Government which, less than a year earlier, had denounced the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP) plan to increase the Child Care Subsidy for low-income families as a ‘fast-track’ to communism (Iggulden, 2019). Many welcomed the Government’s explicit recognition of ECEC as a vital economic pillar, and hoped the package might herald longer-term change (Ziwica, 2020). However, the policy’s stated objective was to rescue the sector – which includes many for-profit operators4 – from collapse, thereby ‘building a bridge for these valuable services to the other side of this virus’ (Morrison and Tehan, 2020: n.p.).
In July, the Government reinstated the Child Care Subsidy, saying the relief package had ‘succeeded in its objective of keeping services open and viable’ (Tehan, 2020a: n.p.). Additionally, the Government ceased JobKeeper payments to ECEC employees – making this highly feminised sector5 the first to lose such entitlements (Probyn, 2020) – replacing it with a direct subsidy to ECEC providers payable through September (Tehan, 2020a).
Scholars and childcare advocates argued that withdrawing fee-free childcare in a recessionary environment would push women out of the labour force (Hill, 2020; The Parenthood, 2020). It is well established that childcare costs act as a brake on women’s workforce participation in Australia. As women work more hours, they incur higher effective marginal tax rates while their access to government benefits declines, effectively creating a financial disincentive to work (Kitchen and Wardell-Johnson, 2018; Stewart, 2018). Nevertheless, the Government’s 2020–2021 Budget offered no substantive changes to ECEC funding or policy. Its main announcement was a $305.6 million package of subsidies to providers in Victoria, where the second-wave July–October lockdown continued to
Southern Cross Institute,
Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
Tel: +61 2 9066 6902 Website: www.sci.edu.au
TEQSA Provider No: PRV14353 CRICOS Provider No: 04078ª
Page 9 of 16
threaten sector viability (Hayne, 2020), and a promise to assist providers in other jurisdictions should they experience further pandemic-related disruptions (Tehan, 2020b).
In response, the ALP pledged to overhaul the Child Care Subsidy if it wins the next election. ALP leader Anthony Albanese promised $6.2 billion over 3 years6 to increase the subsidy from 85% to 90% for families earning less than $80,000, to lift the subsidy cut-off from $365,000 to $530,000, and to smooth the rate at which the subsidy decreases (House of Representatives, 2020). He also promised to remove the Child Care Subsidy cap, which limits annual subsidy payments to $10,560 for families earning a combined income of more than $189,390 per year (House of Representatives, 2020). This setting has been identified as a primary disincentive to sole parents and ‘secondary’ earners (usually women) working more hours (McKell Institute, 2020; Wood et al., 2020b). The ALP also promised to assess the feasibility of a universal 90% subsidy for all families, and to develop a price regulation mechanism to keep childcare fees down (House of Representatives, 2020).
Aged care
Aged care was another highly feminised7 sector impacted by COVID-19, highlighting systemic faults that were the focus of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (the ‘Royal Commission’) throughout 2020. At the time of writing, more than 2050 cases of COVID-19 (including 685 deaths) had been confirmed in Australian residential aged care facilities, mostly in Victoria (1988 cases) and New South Wales (61 cases) (Department of Health, 2020b). As of mid-October, COVID-19 cases among aged care residents represented 7.5% of all infections, and 75% of virus-related deaths (Department of Health, 2020a). Aged care workers were identified as having the greatest risk of workplace-related COVID-19 exposure; up to four times higher than nurses and eight times higher than the general population (Swan, 2020). By mid-August, aged care workers accounted for more than half of the 2692 health and aged care workers with confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Victoria, most of whom were women (Wahlquist, 2020).
Chronic understaffing; a highly casualised and poorly paid workforce; insufficient training, safety protocols, and personal protective equipment; inadequate government funding; and an incoherent and contradictory policy response – in particular, paying some workers to relinquish second jobs while allowing other workers to claim retention bonuses from multiple employers (Middleton, 2020) – were identified as primary factors accelerating the spread of COVID-19 through aged care facilities, particularly privately-run, for-profit centres (for comprehensive analysis of the policy response and failings in the aged care sector, see Morton, 2020a, 2020b). Many of these deficiencies had already been identified by the Royal Commission (2019), and in prior research (Charlesworth and Howe, 2018), prompting Peter Rozen QC, the senior counsel assisting, to observe that: ‘None of the
Southern Cross Institute,
Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
Tel: +61 2 9066 6902 Website: www.sci.edu.au
TEQSA Provider No: PRV14353 CRICOS Provider No: 04078ª
Page 10 of 16
problems that have been associated with the response of the aged care sector to COVID-19 was unforeseeable’ (quoted in O’Mallon, 2020).
In submissions to the Royal Commission, researchers and employee groups pressed the Government to address staffing and low pay (Charlesworth, 2020; Macdonald, 2020). Research produced for the commission found, for example, that 57.6% of aged care residents in Australia live in facilities with staffing levels that were ‘inadequate’ by international standards (Eagar et al., 2019, 2020). Additional funding of $621 million per year would be necessary to ensure that all aged care facilities met minimum or basic standards, and an extra $3.23 billion per year would be required to ensure a high standard of care nationally (Comans et al., 2020). The Health Services Union argued that low wages were a major factor underlying low staffing levels and urged the Government to lift the Medicare levy from 2% to 2.65% to fund sector improvements (Murphy, 2020). The Royal Commission was due to release its final report in February 2021, with workforce issues likely to be a key focus.
Pandemic leave
Unions undertook a campaign to secure paid pandemic leave for casual employees and workers in many female-dominated industries. On 1 April 2020, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) issued a decision to vary modern awards in a range of award-reliant industries covering large numbers of female employees (FWC, 2020e). Varied awards included the Hospitality Award, the Restaurant and Catering Industrial Award and the Clerks-Private Sector Award. Recognising that workers without access to paid personal leave may have been forced to keep working during the pandemic, potentially increasing risks of contagion, the FWC acted on its own volition to vary these awards (FWC, 2020e). The FWC granted 2 weeks’ unpaid pandemic leave, available to all employees covered by 99 awards, until 30 June 2020 (FWC, 2020e). Additional flexibilities included enabling employees to take up to twice as much annual leave at half pay. These provisions were subsequently extended to October (FWC, 2020c).
With the FWC granting unpaid pandemic leave, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and unions began campaigning for paid pandemic leave for healthcare workers. They argued that workers’ increased exposure to the coronavirus, higher infection rates and likelihood of being required to self-isolate on more than one occasion necessitated the provision of paid pandemic leave (FWC, 2020d). The unions also cited the precedent of state and territory public sector health sector workers being granted paid pandemic leave (FWC, 2020a). On 8 July, the FWC rejected the ACTU’s application (FWC, 2020a). The FWC noted that while the unions had focused on securing paid pandemic leave for frontline workers, these employees would largely be covered by enterprise agreements or state-based industrial instruments, not modern awards, which cover employees in the national
Southern Cross Institute,
Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
Tel: +61 2 9066 6902 Website: www.sci.edu.au
TEQSA Provider No: PRV14353 CRICOS Provider No: 04078ª
Page 11 of 16
system (FWC, 2020a). Further, the public sector state systems had largely implemented various forms of paid pandemic leave, negating the need for additional paid leave. The overriding factor, however, and based on the testimonials of expert witnesses, was that healthcare workers were not currently experiencing an elevated risk of infection, and paid pandemic leave was therefore not necessary. The FWC left open the possibility of granting paid leave, should the pandemic worsen – which it did. On 22 July, the FWC reviewed the increased numbers of coronavirus cases, and determined that paid pandemic leave should be granted for healthcare employees (FWC, 2020b). On 27 July, the FWC granted 10 days’ paid leave to aged care workers, nurses and health professionals for a period of 3 months. Government-provided paid pandemic leave for these workers was subsequently extended across all jurisdictions (Morrison, 2020c).
Flexible work arrangements
Shortly after the pandemic was declared in March 2020, the Australian Government issued advice that employees should work from home (Morrison, 2020d). At the height of the pandemic, fewer than half of Australian workers attended their usual workplace (ABS, 2020a). By May, governments had started to advise that employees could start to return to their workplaces, although with a resurgence of the pandemic in Victoria in July 2020, many Victorian workers continued to work from home until the end of October (Towell et al., 2020). Research found that working from home during the pandemic enabled men to undertake more caring responsibilities in both public and private sectors (Colley and Williamson, 2020; WGEA, 2020). Other research, however, found that women bore the brunt of domestic and paid work duties, leading to increased levels of work/family conflict (Craig and Churchill, 2020; Johnston et al., 2020). Many employees reported a desire to continue working from home post-pandemic, for at least part of the week (Colley and Williamson, 2020). With much speculation about whether this form of working will become the ‘new normal’, working from home is likely to remain a prominent form of flexible working.
Parental leave
This year also saw the passage of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill, which amended the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010. Prior to the legislation, employees were required to access the 18 weeks’ government-provided parental leave pay in one continuous period within the first 12 months of birth or adoption. The changed legislation provides for a ‘non-flexible’ period of parental leave, with pay, of 60 days to be taken in the 12 months following the birth or adoption of a child. Eligible employees can then take ‘flexible’ PPL of 30 days within the first 2 years of birth or adoption (Parliament of Australia, 2020b). The flexible PPL can also be accessed by a secondary claimant on the days when they are the primary carer (Services Australia, 2020). This may increase the numbers of men
Southern Cross Institute,
Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
Tel: +61 2 9066 6902 Website: www.sci.edu.au
TEQSA Provider No: PRV14353 CRICOS Provider No: 04078ª
Page 12 of 16
taking primary parental leave, which has historically been low, with only 1 in 20 Australian fathers using this leave (Walsh, 2018).
The legislation is designed to increase the flexibility of parental leave pay, and by extension, periods of parental leave. Employees can use the flexible parental leave pay to stagger their return to the workplace, as the 6 weeks do not need to be taken consecutively (Parliament of Australia, 2020b). The employee can also take unpaid parental leave for part of the week, as well as parental leave pay. Women’s groups and community organisations welcomed the legislation but recommended that the scheme be enhanced by extending the period and increasing the rate of parental leave pay, and including superannuation (Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, 2020).
Parental leave entitlements were also strengthened in 2020 with the passage of the Fair Work Amendment (Improving Unpaid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies and Other Measures) Act 2020. The amendments implemented the recommendations of a Senate Inquiry into stillbirth, which recommended consistency in the parental leave provisions of the Fair Work Act available to parents of stillborn and live babies (Parliament of Australia, 2020a). These amendments increased the unpaid parental leave provisions for parents of stillborn babies and babies who die within the first 2 years of life. Previously, these parents were entitled to 6 weeks’ unpaid parental leave. Parents of stillborn babies and babies who die within 2 years are now entitled to up to 12 months’ unpaid parental leave (Parliament of Australia, 2020a). The legislation also mirrors the provisions in the Paid Parental Leave Act, enabling employees to access flexible parental leave.
Sexual harassment
In March, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) released its final report on the national inquiry into sexual harassment. The report, entitled Respect@Work, found that sexual harassment is both pervasive and costly, with one-third of workers who responded to the AHRC’s 2018 survey on sexual harassment stating that they had been sexually harassed in the workplace in the preceding 5 years. This persistent harassment cost the economy at least $3.8 billion in legal fees, lost wages and productivity (AHRC, 2020). Based on 460 submissions and consultations with more than 600 individuals, the report offered 55 recommendations including the proposed introduction of a positive duty, which would require employers to ‘take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and victimisation, as far as possible’ (AHRC, 2020: 44). Critics have long argued that organisational and regulatory approaches to sexual harassment, prohibited under the Sex Discrimination Act (Cth), are overly reliant on individual complaints (MacDermott, 2020). A positive duty, in contrast, would require organisations to take preventative action, with compliance policed by the AHRC. Positive duties are used in other legislation, notably, the Workplace Health and Safety Act (2011).
Southern Cross Institute,
Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
Tel: +61 2 9066 6902 Website: www.sci.edu.au
TEQSA Provider No: PRV14353 CRICOS Provider No: 04078ª
Page 13 of 16
Relatedly, the AHRC stressed that sexual harassment is a workplace health and safety issue and recommended that the model Work Health Safety (WHS) regulations, the single set of WHS laws developed by Safe Work Australia (see Safe Work Australia, n.d.), be amended to include psychological health (AHRC, 2020). Researchers have argued that WHS legislation should regulate sexual harassment, in recognition of the significant mental and psychological harm this behaviour inflicts on workers. However, WHS agencies have not previously recognised sexual harassment as a WHS issue and have not possessed adequate knowledge or resources (Smith et al., 2019). Accordingly, the AHRC recommended that staff in WHS agencies receive training in the prevention of sexual harassment. The re-framing of sexual harassment as a psychological health and safety issue was also evident in its recommendation that the Fair Work Act be amended to incorporate a ‘stop sexual harassment order’ similar to a ‘stop bullying order’ (AHRC, 2020: 46), a remedy currently available under WHS laws.
The AHRC also examined the purpose and use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). NDAs are legally enforceable contracts made at the time of the settlement of a sexual harassment case, which can bind parties to keep the terms of the settlement confidential (AHRC, 2020). While NDAs can provide confidentiality for those subjected to sexual harassment, they can also lead to a culture of silence, protect organisations where sexual harassment has occurred and shield repeat offenders (AHRC, 2020). The lack of transparency also hides the outcomes of the settlements, making it difficult to know whether outcomes are fair and consistent (MacDermott, 2020).
Conclusion
In summary, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate economic and social impact on women, particularly during the initial phase of the crisis when women lost more jobs and more working hours than men, withdrew from the labour market at a higher rate than men, and assumed a greater share of unpaid caregiving and domestic responsibilities. Although women benefitted from some of the short-term relief measures – for example, as part-time workers receiving the full JobKeeper payment and as ‘secondary’ earners enjoying temporary relief from childcare fees – women’s labour market issues have largely been overlooked in medium- and longer-term stimulus measures. Lessons from previous economic downturns show that recessions, and the austerity measures that typically follow such events, have significant and damaging long-term effects on women’s workforce participation and economic security (Blanton et al., 2019; Rubery and Rafferty, 2013), widening existing inequalities.
Source: Foley, M., & Williamson, S. (2021). Women, work and industrial relations in Australia in 2020. Journal of Industrial Relations, 63(3), 321-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185621996407 (Original work published 2021)
Southern Cross Institute,
Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
Tel: +61 2 9066 6902 Website: www.sci.edu.au
TEQSA Provider No: PRV14353 CRICOS Provider No: 04078ª
Page 14 of 16
Case study Supplementary Material
Please ensure you read the provided case study carefully. You are also expected to refer to the supplementary materials supplied, as they will assist you in developing a well-informed and evidence-based response. These resources are essential for completing the assessment to a high standard.
ABC News (2020) The latest on which restrictions will be eased in your state this week. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-25/coronavirus-restrictions-eased-in your-state-territory-this-week/12281004 (accessed 26 March 2025).
Foley, M., Williamson, S., & Mosseri, S. (2020). Women, work and industrial relations in Australia in 2019. Journal of Industrial Relations, 62(3), 365-379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185620909402
Hare J (2020) Snap Forward Feminist Policy Network: Submission on COVID-19. BroadAgenda. Available at: https://www.broadagenda.com.au/2020/snap-forward-feminist policy-network-submission-to-the-select-committee-on-covid-19/ (accessed 26 March 2025).
National Foundation for Australian Women (NFAW) (2020) Budget 2020: Impact on women. Available at: https://nfaw.org/gender-lens-on-the-budget/gender-lens-on-the budget-2020-2021/ (accessed 26 March 2025).
Richardson D and Denniss R (2020) Gender Experiences during the COVID-19 Lockdown. Canberra: The Australia Institute.
Stewart M (2018) Personal income tax cuts and the new Child Care Subsidy: Do they address high effective marginal tax rates on women’s work? TTPI Policy Brief 1/2018, August. Canberra: Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Australian National University.
The Australian Government the Treasury 2021: Insights from the first six months of job keepers. Available at : Insights from the first six months of JobKeeper (access date: 26 March 2025).
Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) (2020) Gendered impacts of COVID19_0. pdf. Sydney: Australian Government. Available at: https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/ default/files/documents/Gendered%20impacts%20of%20COVID19_0.pdf (accessed 17 December 2020)
Southern Cross Institute,
Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
Tel: +61 2 9066 6902 Website: www.sci.edu.au
TEQSA Provider No: PRV14353 CRICOS Provider No: 04078ª
Page 15 of 16
Rubric for Individual Case Study Analysis Report (30%) Fail (0 – 49%) Pass (50-64%) Credit (65-74%) Distinction (75-84%) High Distinction (85 – 100%) Critical Analysis of Gendered Impacts of COVID-19 Economic Policies (25%)
Fails to identify or misrepresents the gendered effects of the economic support measures. Lacks critical analysis or supporting evidence.
Demonstrates a basic understanding of the gendered impacts with limited critical insight. Analysis is general and lacks depth.
Shows a sound understanding of how the policies impacted women, with some critical analysis supported by relevant evidence.
Provides a detailed and well-reasoned evaluation of the gendered effects of the policies, backed by strong evidence and examples.
Demonstrates exceptional depth of analysis and critical insight into the gendered consequences of economic policy. Evaluation is comprehensive, nuanced, and supported by high-quality evidence. Application of HRM Theories to Explain Policy Impact and Propose Alternatives (30%)
Does not apply or misapplies HRM theories. Fails to link theory with the case or propose relevant strategies.
Applies HRM theories in a limited way with minimal relevance to the case. Strategies proposed lack theoretical grounding.
Demonstrates adequate understanding of HRM theories with some linkage to the case. Provides partially relevant strategies.
Applies HRM theories appropriately and links them clearly to the case. Proposes relevant and theoretically informed strategies.
Applies HRM theories expertly, showing deep understanding. Strategies proposed are insightful, well-justified, and grounded in theory and practice. Use of Evidence, Research, and Ethical AI Integration (15%)
Lacks credible sources or does not use evidence to support the argument. Does not acknowledge AI use, or AI-generated content is used unethically (e.g., AI-generated text is presented as original work).
Uses a limited range of sources, some of which may not be credible. Some attempt to integrate AI, but lacks transparency (e.g., AI assistance not cited) or AI use is superficial.
Uses a range of sources. AI tools (if used) are acknowledged but not always critically evaluated. Evidence supports the argument, though integration may be uneven.
Uses a range of credible sources and transparently integrates AI use (e.g., AI-assisted research, summarization). AI use is appropriately cited and critically evaluated.
Utilises a wide range of credible sources and integrates AI ethically and transparently. AI is used as a tool to enhance critical analysis, not replace original thought. AI use is critically evaluated for reliability and bias. Argument Development, Organisation, and Ethical Use of AI-Generated Content (15%)
Report is unstructured and disorganised. Sections are disjointed, and transitions are unclear or missing. AI-generated content is misused (e.g., direct AI-generated text without critical engagement).
Report has basic structure and organisation. Some sections may be poorly arranged, and transitions are unclear. AI-generated content (if used) is acknowledged but not meaningfully engaged with.
Report has a sound structure and organisation. Some sections may not flow logically or may have weak transitions. AI-generated content (if used) is critically engaged with but could be better integrated.
Report is well-organised with a clear structure. Sections generally flow logically. AI-generated content (if used) is transparently cited and well-integrated.
Report is exceptionally well-organised with a clear structure. AI-generated content (if used) is transparently cited, critically analysed, and meaningfully enhances the originality and depth of the argument.
Southern Cross Institute,
Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
Tel: +61 2 9066 6902 Website: www.sci.edu.au
TEQSA Provider No: PRV14353 CRICOS Provider No: 04078ª
Page 16 of 16
Writing Quality, Referencing, and Ethical Citation of AI Use (15%)
Writing is unclear, with frequent grammatical errors. Referencing is inaccurate or absent. AI use (if any) is not cited, or citation is inappropriate.
Writing is often unclear and contains several grammatical errors. Referencing has multiple inconsistencies with APA 7 but has been attempted. AI use is acknowledged but citation is inconsistent.
Writing is generally clear but may contain some grammatical errors. Referencing is mostly accurate but may have minor inconsistencies with APA 7 style. AI use is appropriately cited but lacks critical reflection.
Writing is mostly clear and concise, with few grammatical errors. Referencing is mostly accurate and consistent with APA 7 style. AI use is cited correctly and includes some critical evaluation.
Writing is clear, concise, and free of grammatical errors. Referencing is accurate and follows APA 7 style consistently. AI use is cited correctly, with critical reflection on its role in the research and writing process